Focus

With the Lefebvrists, Ecumenism Doesnt Come Cheap

Those who dialogue with them risk the accusation of betraying Vatican Council II. The pope tries, and is criticized by a German theologian. But in the meantime, many traditionalist groups have already made their peace with Rome

by Sandro Magister

ROME, June 2, 2010 – In two days, Benedict XVI will travel to Cyprus. It will be the first time that a pope has visited the island, invited and welcomed by the local Orthodox Church. Not even John Paul II was able to do so.

But Benedict XVI is engaged on another ecumenical front.

It's with the followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who are still in a state of schism with the Church of Rome because of their rejection of the authenticity of Vatican Council II.

*

At the beginning of 2009, the pope's decision to lift the excommunication of four bishops ordained illicitly by Lefebvre (in the photo) – a decision poorly communicated and poorly understood inside and outside of the Church – caused a storm of confusion and criticism.

In order to clarify the meaning of his action, Benedict XVI sent a letter to the bishops on March 10 of last year. In it, he explained that the lifting of the excommunication was intended to call "those thus punished to repent and to return to unity." And he stressed that the journey of reconciliation had yet to be undertaken, because the dispute was of a doctrinal nature and concerned the acceptance of Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar magisterium of the popes.

In confirmation of this doctrinal nature of the dispute, the pope closely joined the pontifical commission "Ecclesia Dei" – charged with dialoguing with the Lefebvrists and with other similar groups – with the congregation for the doctrine of the faith.

In the same letter to the bishops, Benedict XVI explained that the call to the unity of faith must apply to all Christians. And therefore it is senseless to "casually let drift farther from the Church" the 491 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university institutes, 117 brothers, 164 sisters, and thousands of faithful who make up the Lefebvrist community.

But the pope also noted, with regret, that there is an intolerance in the Church aimed both at the Lefebvrists and at those who "dare to approach them."

Benedict XVI himself is a target of this intolerance. He wrote to the bishops that because of his efforts to reconcile the Lefebvrists with the Church, "some groups openly accused the pope of wanting to turn back the clock to before [Vatican Council II]."

These criticisms have recently reappeared, even in theologically sophisticated forms. For example, in a cerebral commentary written by Eberhard Schockenhoff, professor of moral theology at the University of Freiburg, in the April 2010 issue of the German Jesuit magazine "Stimmen der Zeit," reproduced in its entirety, in Italian, in the latest issue of "Il Regno."

Schockenhoff is a professor of moral theology at the University of Freigburg, and was a disciple and assistant of Walter Kasper, now a cardinal and president of the pontifical council for Christian unity.

In his commentary, Schockenhoff correctly writes that the real disagreement between the Church of Rome and the Lefebvrists does not concern the Mass in Latin, but the teaching of Vatican II, especially on ecclesiology and on freedom of conscience and religion.

But he also writes that Rome is wrong to whip up restrictive interpretations of the conciliar texts to offer to the Lefebvrists in the hope that these will be accepted by them. Because in Schockenhoff's view, this is exactly what is happening in the closed-door meetings organized by "Ecclesia Dei."

Rome – Schockenhoff writes – wants to extract a verbal acknowledgment of the freedom of conscience and religion, the cornerstones of modern culture, from no less than the Lefebvrists, the most dogged enemies of modernity. But doing this is like trying to "square the circle," impossible. No one would ever believe in the sincerity of such a reconciliation, even if it were signed.

In condemning the "hermeneutic tightrope walk" by which the Church of Rome wants to reconcile the Lefebvrists to itself, with grave harm to the correct interpretation of the Council, Schockenhoff repeatedly cites Ratzinger the theologian and his "Platonist-Augustinian conception of conscience": a conception "too different" – he writes – from that of the conciliar declaration "Dignitatis Humanae" on religious freedom.

The work by Ratzinger that is cited is from 1992. Inexplicably, however, Schockenhoff does not cite a much more pertinent and recent text by Ratzinger, after he became pope.

This key text is the final part of the memorable speech that Benedict XVI gave to the Roman curia on December 22, 2005, on the interpretation of Vatican Council II.

In explaining how to interpret the Council correctly, Benedict XVI shows how it did in fact introduce new developments with respect to the past, but always in continuity with "the deepest patrimony of the Church."

And as an example of this interplay between newness and continuity, the pope illustrates precisely the conciliar ideas on freedom of religion: the main point of division between the Church and the Lefebvrists.

From this speech onward, it becomes clear that for Benedict XVI, the Lefebvrists can reconcile with the Church only if they accept everything written in "Dignitatis Humanae" according to the interpretation of it made by the pope, and not according to another more restrictive, or "Platonist-Augustinian," interpretation.

The following is the extensive concluding passage of Benedict XVI's speech on December 22, 2005.

And after it, a detailed commentary by Fr. Giancarlo Rocca, director of the "Dizionario degli istituti di perfezione," on the traditionalist groups that have been brought back to obedience so far by the pontifical commission "Ecclesia Dei," the same one that is working on the Lefebvrists. The commentary was published in "L'Osservatore Romano" on May 11, 2010.

_______________

"IN THIS PROCESS OF CHANGE THROUGH CONTINUITY..."

by Benedict XVI

[...] The Council had to find a new definition of the relationship between the Church and the modern age. This relationship started out difficultly with the Galileo trial. It broke completely, when Kant defined “religion within pure reason” and when, in the radical phase of the French Revolution, an image of the state and of man was spread that practically intended to crowd out the Church and faith. The clash of the Church's faith with a radical liberalism and also with natural sciences that claimed to embrace, with its knowledge, the totality of reality to its outmost borders, stubbornly setting itself to make the “hypothesis of God” superfluous, had provoked in the 19th century under Pius IX, on the part of the Church, a harsh and radical condemnation of this spirit of the modern age. Thus, there were apparently no grounds for an positive and fruitful agreement, and drastic were also the refusals on the part of those who felt they were the representatives of the modern age.

However, in the meantime, the modern age also had its development. It was becoming clear that the American Revolution had offered a model of the modern state that was different from that theorized by the radical tendencies that had emerged from the second phase of the French Revolution. Natural sciences began, in a more and more clear way, to reflect their own limits, imposed by their own method which, though achieving great things, was nevertheless not able to comprehend the totality of reality.

Thus, both sides began to progressively open up to each other. In the period between the two world wars and even more after the second world war, Catholic statemen had shown that a modern lay state can exist, which nevertheless is not neutral with respect to values, but lives tapping into the great ethical fonts of Christianity. Catholic social doctrine, as it developed, had become an important model between radical liberalism and the Marxist theory of the state. Natural sciences, which would unreservedly profess to its own method in which God had no access, realized ever more clearly that this method was not comprehensive of the totality of reality and thus opened once again their doors to God, knowing that reality is greater than naturalistic method and what it can embrace.

It could be said that three tiers of questions were formed that now, at the hour of Vatican II, awaited a response.

First and foremost, it was necessary to define in a new way the relationship between faith and modern science; this regarded, however, not only natural sciences, but also historical sciences because, in a certain school, the historical-critical method claimed for itself the final words on the interpretation of the Bible and, demanding full exclusiveness for its understanding of Sacred Scriptures, it opposed, on important points, the interpretation that the faith of the Church had elaborated.

Secondly, it was necessary to define in a new way the relationship between the Church and the modern state, which made room to citizens of various religions and ideologies, acting impartially towards these religions and simply taking on the responsibility for the orderly and tolerant coexistence between citizens and for their freedom to exercise their religion.

To this, thirdly, was connected in a more general way the problem of religious tolerance – a question that called for a new definition of the relationship between Christian faith and religion in the world. In particular, in the face of the recent crimes of the National-Socialist regime and, in general, in a retrospective look on a long and difficult history, it was necessary to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between the Church and the faith of Israel.

These are all important subjects – these great themes of the second part of the Council – uponwhich we cannot now dwell much here. It is clear that in all these sectors, which together are one problem, some discontinuities would emerge. Although this may not have been fully appreciated at first, the discontinuities that did emerge – notwithstanding distinct concrete historical situations and their needs – did prevent continuity at the level of principles.

The nature of true reform lies in this combination of multi-levelled continuity and discontinuity.

In this process of change through continuity we had to learn how to understand better than before that the Church’s decisions about contingent matters – for example, about actual forms of liberalism or liberal interpretations of the Bible – were necessarily themselves contingent because related to a reality itself changeable.

We had to learn how to recognise that in such decisions only principles express what is lasting, embedded in the background and determining the decision from within. The concrete forms these decisions take are not permanent but depend upon the historical situations. They can therefore change.

Thus, for example, with freedom of religion seen as expressing mankind’s inability to find truth, relativism becomes the canon. From being a social and historical necessity it is incorrectly elevated to a metaphysical level that loses its true meaning. It therefore becomes unacceptable to those who believe that mankind can reach the truth of God and, based on truth’s inner dignity, is related to such knowledge.

This is completely different from viewing freedom of religion as a necessity that human coexistence requires or even seeing it as an inherent consequence of the truth that such freedom cannot be imposed from the outside but must come from a conviction from within.

By adopting a decree on religious freedom, the Second Vatican Council recognised and made its own an essential principle of the modern state. And in doing so, it reconnected with the wider heritage of the Church.

The Church itself is conscious that it is fully in sync with the teachings of Jesus (cf Mt 22: 21), the Church of the early martyrs, and with all the martyrs. Although the early Church dutifully prayed for emperors and political leaders as a matter of fact (cf 1 Tm 2: 2), it refused to worship them and thus rejected the state religion. In dying for their faith in the one God revealed in Jesus Christ, the martyrs of the early Church also died on behalf of freedom of conscience and the freedom to profess one’s own religion. No state can impose any religion; instead, religion must be freely chosen with the grace of God and in freedom of conscience.

A missionary Church required to proclaim its message to all the nations must commit itself to freedom of religion. It must pass on the gift of truth that exists for all and at the same time reassure nations and governments that it does not want to destroy their identities and cultures. It must show that it brings an answer they intimately expect. This answer is not lost among the many cultures, but instead enhances unity among men and thus peace among nations.

By defining in a new way the relationship between the faith of the Church and some essential elements of modern thinking, the Second Vatican Council revised and even corrected some past decisions. But in an apparent discontinuity it has instead preserved and reinforced its intimate nature and true identity. The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic both before and after the Council, throughout time. It “presses forward amid the persecutions of the world and the consolations of God,” announcing the cross and death of the Lord until he comes (cf Lumen gentium, 8).

Yet those who expected that with this fundamental “Yes” to the modern age, all tensions would melt away, and that this “opening up to the world” would render everything harmonious, underestimated the inner tensions and contradictions of the modern age; they underestimated the internal tensions and the dangerous fragility of human nature, which have threatened man’s journey throughout all historical periods and configurations. Given man’s new power over himself and over matter, these dangers have not disappeared; instead, they have acquired a new dimension. We can clearly illustrate this by looking at current history.

In our time too, the Church remains a “sign of contradiction” (Lk 2: 34) and for this reason in 1976 pope John Paul II, then a cardinal, gave it as the title to the spiritual exercises he preached to Pope Paul VI and the Roman curia. The Council could not abolish this Gospel contradiction in the face of the dangers and errors of mankind. What it did do was put aside wrong or superfluous contradictions in order to present to our world the requirements of the Gospel in all its greatness and purity.

The steps that the Council took toward the modern age – which in a rather imprecise manner has been presented as an “opening up to the world” – belongs decisively among the perennial problems of the ever changing relationship between faith and reason.

Undoubtedly, the Council faced situations that existed before. In his first Epistle, saint Peter urged Christians to be ready to answer (apo-logia) anyone who asked them the logos, the reason for their faith (cf 3:15). This meant that biblical faith had to interact with and relate to Greek culture, learning how to recognise, by interpreting distinctions as well as through contact and affinity with the latter, the one God-given reason.

When Medieval Christianity, largely schooled in the Platonic tradition, came into contact with Aristotle’s ideas via Jewish and Arab philosophers in the 13th century, faith and reason almost became irreconcilable. But saint Thomas Aquinas was especially able to find a new synthesis between faith and Aristotelian philosophy. Faith could relate in a positive manner with the dominant notions of reason of the time.

The exacting disputes between modern reason and Christian faith, which started off on the wrong foot with Galileo’s trial, went through several phases. But by the time the Second Vatican Council was convened new thinking was possible. The new approach found in the conciliar papers sets out only guidelines but also the essential direction so that the dialogue between faith and reason, very important nowadays, has found its orientation in Vatican II.

This dialogue must now be developed with the openmindedness, but also with that clarity in the discernment of spirits that the world rightly expects from us. We can look back with gratitude to the Second Vatican Council. If we read and accept it guided by a correct interpretation, it can become a great force in the ever necessary renewal of the Church. [...]

__________

TWENTY YEARS AFTER "ECCLESIA DEI." AN ASSESSMENT

by Giancarlo Rocca

On July 2, 1988, the pontifical commission "Ecclesia Dei" was instituted with the motu proprio of the same title by John Paul II. The initial objective was to facilitate the return to full communion with the Church of priests, seminarians, religious, groups and individuals who, not agreeing with the liturgical reform of Vatican Council II, had joined the priestly fraternity of Saint Pius X founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, but had not agreed with his action, performed in 1988, of a consecrating a few bishops.

Afterward, "Ecclesia Dei" extended its competencies, placing itself at the service of all those who, even without connections to the groups of Archbishop Lefebvre, desire to preserve the former Latin liturgy in the celebration of the sacraments, and of the Eucharist in particular. In practice, "Ecclesia Dei" has been given the task of conserving and preserving the value of the Latin liturgy of the Church established in the 1962 reform of John XXIII.

The progress made by "Ecclesia Dei" in these nearly twenty-two years has been significant.

In 1988, the year of its foundation, it granted pontifical approval to the priestly fraternity of Saint Peter, and of the Saint Vincenzo Ferreri fraternity.

The first was founded immediately after the schism of 1988, and its first superior was Fr. Joseph Bisig, previously the assistant general of the fraternity of Saint Pius X with Archbishop Lefebvre.

The second was created in 1979 by Fr. Louis-Marie de Blignières, who had maintained that the conciliar declaration "Dignitatis Humanae" on religious freedom was contrary to traditional Church teaching, and later, after more thorough study, had become convinced that Vatican II did not represent a rupture.

Pontifical approvals for other institutes followed:

- the abbey Sainte-Madeleine, founded in 1970 by Fr. Gerard Calvet, a monk of the Benedictine Subiaco congregation (1989);

- the abbey Our Lady of the Annunciation, in Le Barroux, France, founded in 1979 as the women's branch of the abbey Sainte-Madeleine, founded by Fr. Calvet (1989);

- the Mothers of the Holy Cross, with generalate house in Tanzania, founded in 1976 by Sister Maria Stieren, of the missionary Benedictines of Tutzing, and by Fr. Cornelio Del Zotto, of the Friars Minor (1991);

- the Servants of Jesus and Mary, founded in 1988 by former Jesuit Fr. Andreas Hönisch, and currently based in Austria (1994);

- the Canonesses Regular of the Mother of God, founded in France in 1971 and connected to the Canons Regular of the Mother of God (2000);

- The Missionaries of the Holy Cross, with generalate house in Tanzania, founded in 1976, which constitutes the men's equivalent of the Mothers of the Holy Cross (2004);

- the Institute of Saint Philip Neri, founded in 2003 by Fr. Gerald Goesche, based in Berlin, Germany (2004);

- the Institute of the Good Shepherd, founded in the same year in France by Fr. Philippe Laguérie, together with some priests who had left the priestly fraternity of Saint Pius X (2006);

- the Oasis of Jesus the Priest, founded in 1965 by Fr. Pedro Muñoz Iranzo and based in Argentona, Spain (2007);

- the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, founded in 2000, based in Sieci, Florence (2008);

- the Adorers of the Royal Heart of Jesus Christ the Sovereign Priest, founded in 2000, based in Sieci, Florence, which constitutes the women's branch of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest (2008).

- Approval of diocesan right is currently underway for the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer, founded in 1988 and based in Scotland, and of the Fraternity of Christ the Priest and of Holy Queen Mary, based in Toledo, Spain.

There are many more foundations – individual monasteries and convents of sisters – that celebrate the liturgy according to the rite of 1962, and it is impossible to list them. But here it is necessary to recall the journey made by the diocese of Campos in Brazil, whose bishop, a man closely aligned with the positions of Archbishop Lefebvre, resigned in 1981 for reasons of age and afterward became a member of the priestly society of Saint John Baptist Mary Vianney. In 2002, the society came back into communion with the Church, and was constituted as a personal apostolic administration – limited to the territory of the diocese of Campos – for the faithful attached to the Tridentine tradition. Within this new apostolic administration, the Institute of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, founded in 1976, received approval of diocesan right in 2008.

As can be seen, a modest number of institutes have obtained pontifical approval, with the possibility of following the traditional rite in the Church. Taken individually, they are small institutes, but around them revolve a certain number of faithful.

The most numerous group seems to be that of the priestly fraternity of Saint Peter, which numbers about thirty houses in the United States of America, about twenty in France, and a few more in Austria, Germany, Switzerland, and Belgium. In Rome in 2008, the fraternity was assigned a personal parish for the faithful who prefer the rite of Pius V: the church of Santissima Trinità dei Pellegrini was designated as their center. The other institutes are of much smaller dimensions, with the exception of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, present in about fifty dioceses, with about 70 priests.

In any case, it is difficult to quantify the number of those who in various ways are under the supervision of "Ecclesia Dei." There are said to be about 370 priests, 200 religious, a hundred non-ordained religious, 300 seminarians, and a few hundred thousand faithful.

As a result of these figures, "Ecclesia Dei" has sometimes been very quick to grant pontifical approval to institutes that have wanted to reenter the Church. And this way of operating stands out clearly if its is compared with the practice of the congregation for institutes of consecrated life and societies of apostolic life, which waits several years before granting pontifical approval to an institute.

The manner in which these institutions have been approved is just as significant, and is clearly expressed in the relative documents.

In establishing the personal apostolic administration of Saint John Mary Vianney, in 2002, the congregation for bishops granted the faculty of celebrating the Eucharist, the other sacraments, and the liturgy of the hours according to the rite codified by Pius V and with the adaptations introduced up until 1963 with the pontificate of John XXIII.

Approving the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest in 2008, "Ecclesia Dei" presented this as a society of priests intending to celebrate "decore ac sanctitate cultus liturgici secundum formam extraordinariam Ritus Romani."

Also in 2008, the commission granted the Trappist abbey of Mariawald, in Germany, a complete return to the liturgy used in the Trappist order until 1963-1964.

The different regime appears even more evident if one considers that these institutes, listed in the Annuario Pontificio, answer only to "Ecclesia Dei," although the granting of pontifical right depends on consultation with the prefect of the congregation for institutes of consecrated life and societies of apostolic life.

Two documents by Benedict XVI have clarified the range of action of "Ecclesia Dei," and the life of those who feel attached to the ancient rite of the Church.

In the motu proprio "Summorum Pontificum," of July 7, 2007, the pope asserts that the missal of Paul VI is an ordinary expression of the prayer of the Latin-rite Catholic Church, while the one published by John XXIII is an extraordinary expression. This means that neither of the two forms of the one Latin rite is seen as replacing the other. As a result, the use of the Roman missal in the 1962 edition has been liberalized and regulated according to the normative dispositions of "Summorum Pontificum." All priests who wish to may celebrate according to the ancient rite, without needing any permission. And the religious institutes may also celebrate following the previous Roman missal, with the agreement of their major superiors if a regular or permanent celebration is in question. The effect of these measures, and certainly an intentional one, is not to contrast the missal of Pius V with that of Paul VI or vice versa – making it an element of friction – but to consider them two forms of the one rite.

The second document is the motu proprio apostolic letter "Ecclesiae Unitatem," of July 2, 2009, with which the pontiff closely associated "Ecclesia Deo" with the congregation for the doctrine of the faith. This updating of its structure is intended to adapt the pontifical commission to the new situation created with the lifting of the excommunication – on January 21, 2009 – of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre. Because the problems in view of healing the division of the priestly fraternity of Saint Pius X are of an essentially doctrinal nature, Benedict XVI has decided to expand the competencies of "Ecclesia Dei," putting it directly under the congregation for the doctrine of the faith.

(from "L'Osservatore Romano," May 11, 2010)

______________

The complete text of Benedict XVI's speech on December 22, 2005, on the interpretation of Vatican Council II: